Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242 DOI 10.1007/s11256-009-0129-y
Critical Pedagogy and Democratic Education: Possibilities for Cross-Pollination D. Brent Edwards Jr.
Published online: 3 September 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract Reviewing the literature on critical pedagogy (CP) and democratic education (DE) reveals that very little has been written comparing the two (Knight and Pearl in Urban Rev 32(2):197–226, 2000). After reading the Urban Review article by Knight and Pearl (2000)—the only publication explicitly comparing the two approaches to education—I was intrigued to further compare, contrast, and consider the possibilities of connecting democratic education and critical pedagogy. My review of current literature suggests that the authors may offer some misleading claims about the theory, operation, and potential of CP. This manuscript, therefore, attempts to (a) present counterevidence to the claims of Knight and Pearl (2000) and (b) explore possibilities for cross-pollination between CP and DE. To do this, this manuscript presents various aspects of Knight and Pearl’s conception of DE; lays out the tenets of CP by drawing on the most recent work of its theorists and practitioners; and, lastly, demonstrates not only that the two approaches are more similar than different, but also that possibilities for cross-pollination exist in working towards the formation of democratic and social justice-oriented citizens. Keywords Critical pedagogy Democratic education Social justice Democracy Citizenship education
D. Brent Edwards Jr. International Education Policy, Department of Education Leadership, Higher Education and International Education, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA D. Brent Edwards Jr. (&) 224 Quaint Acres Dr., Silver Spring, MD 20904, USA e-mail:
[email protected]
123
222
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
Introduction The education of individuals is an intensely political endeavor. Naturally, policymakers and professionals at all levels are confronted with the question, ‘Education for what?,’ which, unsurprisingly, elicits an array of answers depending on the background, objectives, and worldview of the individual answering the question. Nevertheless, Westheimer and Kahne (2004), sought to answer this question—at least partially—in their seminal piece entitled, ‘What kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating for Democracy.’ Through this piece, they sought to understand the nature of the individuals that governments, policymakers, theorists, administrators, curriculum writers, and educators attempt to produce through their work. Through extensive literature review and consultations with educators and leaders in the field, three general categories emerged: (a) The personally responsible citizen, (b) the participatory citizen, and (c) the justice-oriented citizen. However, even within these classifications, there seems to be some confusion regarding the differences between them, not to mention the extent to which they overlap and can be symbiotic. This manuscript enters the debate at this point. More specifically, Knight and Pearl (2000), in their essay, ‘Democratic Education and Critical Pedagogy,’ argue in favor of a conception of democratic education that sought to produce participatory citizens, while simultaneously criticizing critical pedagogy, which seeks to produce justice-oriented citizens. After reading the Urban Review article by Knight and Pearl (2000) I was intrigued to further compare, contrast, and consider the possibilities of connecting democratic education and critical pedagogy. My review of current literature suggests that the authors may offer some misleading claims about the theory, operation, and potential of critical pedagogy. The essay by Knight and Pearl (2000) warrants attention because it is the only work to date that explicitly compares critical pedagogy and democratic education. I found this both surprising and bothersome. After reading a number of publications by the theorists and practitioners of critical pedagogy, I started exploring the literature on democratic education. Although the two approaches fall into different categories with regard to the types of citizens that they aim to educate (participatory vs. justice-oriented), they seemed similar and compatible in terms of their mutual end goal (social justice and a more democratic society) and classroom practices. Out of a desire to more fully understand their complementary nature, I searched for sources comparing the two—sure that their similarities and differences had already been mapped out. Neither the library catalogues of major research universities (The University of Pennsylvania and The University of Maryland) nor the major databases of education research (Academic Search Premier, Education Research Complete, Educational Research Information Center [ERIC], Teacher Reference Center) produced any literature on the subject other than the one essay by Knight and Pearl. Even the Internet search engine Google lead only to this piece. As such, this manuscript takes the work by Knight and Pearl as its starting point into the conversation between critical pedagogy and democratic education. There is another reason, however, to investigate these two approaches: Context. Although more is being written about critical pedagogy, it arguably receives
123
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
223
relatively little attention in today’s dominant neoliberal economic and political environment—embodied in the field of education by such policies as No Child Left Behind (NCLB 2002). The theory and practice of critical pedagogy remains esoteric, off the radar of most professionals in education. Thus, in this context, it is necessary to respond to Knight and Pearl for two reasons: (a) To address the misplaced criticisms by them of critical pedagogy, and (b) to demonstrate the complementary nature between democratic education and a more full understanding of critical pedagogy. It is vital that critics and proponents of both approaches more fully conceive of the theory and practice of the other. This is especially so because Knight and Pearl (through their conception of the participatory citizen) and proponents of critical pedagogy (through their conception of the justice-oriented citizen) are generally seeking the same end—namely the formation of pupils that will be able to answer the ‘‘deregulated global capitalism’’ (Knight and Pearl 2000, p. 200) that currently impedes the realization of more participatory and deliberative democracy (Crocker 2008). While it may seem theoretically untenable to bring together these two theories, the reality is that the origins and influential theorists, while they do come from different times and places, have always had much in common. It should not be so much a surprise that one is now comparing them; rather, the surprise is that they have not been brought together sooner. Some more recent thinkers on the theory and practice of democratic education have focused on liberal conceptions of democracy and democratic citizenship which center around individual rights and being a good person generally, but, as Westheimer and Kahne (2004) point out, there is a continuum along which educators and philosophers fall regarding the purpose and appropriate approach to education—with the other end of the continuum representing more participatory and social justice-oriented conceptions of democracy and democratic citizenship. Historically, influential thinkers on democracy and education, such as Dewey (1902, 1943, 1966), who wrote at the turn of the twentieth century in the United States against the then-dominant factory and efficiency model of learning scientific knowledge, as well as thinkers on critical theory, such as Marcuse (1964), Althusser (1971), and Horkheimer and Adorno (1972), who emerged from the Marxistoriented Frankfurt School [see Giroux (1983) or Stirk (2000)] in the mid-twentieth century in Germany and who wrote critiques of rationality and dominant ideology, both raised questions of purpose, functioning, context, and relevance. The former raised these questions in relation to education (including its aims and means), while the latter raised them in relation to logic and ideology and their relationship to oppression and the distribution of resources in advanced industrial society. The difference, then, is not so much one of principle, but one of area of application: Educators for radical democracy (in the tradition of Dewey) attend to the relationship between education, and the underlying assumptions about knowledge and the purpose thereof, and society, while critical theorists ask the same questions of the origin, content, and purpose of the thought and accepted knowledge that govern and influence society more broadly. Later proponents of critical pedagogy (especially Paulo Freire, Peter McLaren and Henry Giroux) applied the focus of critical theory to education, yielding much current literature in the field of critical
123
224
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
pedagogy that invokes the language of education for radical, authentic, and participatory democracy. In light of this, delineating more specifically the symbiotic characteristics of democratic education and critical pedagogy can move us towards theories and practices that facilitate a more just and democratic world instead of continuing divisive and antagonistic discourse. The goal of this paper, consequently, is twofold: (a) To present and address the criticisms of Knight and Pearl with regard to critical pedagogy, and (b) to highlight the ways in which a cross-pollination of the two approaches can contribute to the realization of greater social justice and democracy through education. In order to accomplish this task I carefully bring together multiple strands, firstly delineating a specific aspect of Knight and Pearl’s conception of democratic education, along with the obstacles to its realization, which provide the basis for comparison throughout; secondly presenting criticism of critical pedagogy by Knight and Pearl; thirdly presenting a more full and accurate explication of critical pedagogy; and fourthly drawing on the literature of critical pedagogy to compare it with democratic education, demonstrate their similarities, and offer suggestions for how the two theories might be combined or used to inform the other, thereby resulting in a stronger and more complete theory of education geared towards the formation of democratic and justice-oriented citizens.
Democratic Education and Important Knowledge Knight and Pearl’s version of democratic education contains seven components that determine the extent to which a school is characterized by democracy. Here, however, I focus on the first of these—their concept of important knowledge—as an entry point into the comparative analysis.1 Examining this concept and the ‘‘reallife’’ problems (as Knight and Pearl refer to them) associated with determining important knowledge democratically allows us to gain an understanding of the facets of Knight and Pearl’s conception of democratic education, at which point we can switch to addressing Knight and Pearl’s incomplete interpretation of critical pedagogy, then comparing the two approaches. Fleshing out Knight and Pearl’s concept of important knowledge reveals a lot about how they understand democratic education. To start, they recognize (a) that what is currently taught in schools is not a democratic determination and (b) that in order to reach this point education must ‘‘mobilize a large enough constituency to influence the political process.’’ (Knight and Pearl 2000, p. 200). In terms of definition, important knowledge is ‘‘the knowledge that is determined by a 1
The other six components of Knight and Pearls (2000) conception of democratic education include: (1) Democratic authority (a teacher, administrator, or councilor leads by persuasion and negotiation), (2) inclusiveness (the classroom welcomes all students as equally-valued members), (3) student rights (‘‘in a democratic classroom students are born with rights and learn to be responsible [p. 211]), (4) informed participatory decision making (it is ‘‘necessary to organize classroom activities to create opportunities for all students to develop a variety of citizenship skills [p. 213]), (5) optimum learning environment (classrooms should ‘‘encourage a sense of competence, a feeling of belonging, and a sense of ownership’’ [p. 215]), and (6) equality (‘‘equality in education … is operationalized as equal encouragement’’ [p. 221]).
123
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
225
democratic process (i.e., the knowledge that students can use to make decisions that affect their lives and their community’s well-being)’’ (p. 202). Knight and Pearl work towards a democratic determination of what counts as important knowledge, and, in working (a) towards the necessary mobilization of the public that would allow them to enter the education debate, which ‘‘has become increasingly dumbed down and sensationalized,’’ and (b) to show students the relevance of school, they have encountered three recurring real-life problems that stifle the achievement of a democratic process in education (p. 200). What follows are the three problems along with the manner in which Knight and Pearl propose to address them through democratic education. Table 1 summarizes the discussion below of the response of democratic education to the problems that impede the democratic determination of important knowledge. In the first instance, they treat the (in)ability of students to use logic and evidence to address asymmetrical power relationships. Democratic education, they assert, addresses this skill in the classroom by creating ‘‘situations where they are able to exercise ever increasing power in situations where they have had very little power’’ (Knight and Pearl 2000, p. 202). This is done in three ways: (a) ‘‘Establishing their classroom as a model government that, unlike current student government, treats significant issues (such as the development of a justice system);’’ (b) studying history ‘‘not for passive mastery of content to meet some externally established standard, but to understand the logic of a continuing debate whose incomplete resolution led to the creation of new problems … that continue to have relevance today;’’ and (c) ‘‘encouraging students to do penetrating research and extensive analysis (of matters of government)’’ so as to ‘‘help students appreciate the fragility of democracy and why it will always be an unfinished project’’ (Knight and Pearl 2000, p. 202–203). Add to this a healthy dose of discussion and democratic education produces students who have the knowledge and skills to participate in a democracy, to ‘‘propose law, policy, and practice, and [to] defend those proposals with logic and evidence’’ (p. 203). In the second instance, Knight and Pearl discuss the role of education in preparing students for the work world and teaching them how to change it. The
Table 1 Democratically determining important knowledge: the response of DE to real-life problems Real-life problem
Response of democratic education (DE)
1. Inability of students to use logic and evidence to address asymmetrical power relationships
a. Operate classroom as a model government b. Interpretive teaching of history c. Student research of functioning of government d. Classroom discussion and debate
2. Connection between education and labor force
a. Encourage all students equally to complete as much education as possible b. Teach all students economics to understand, discuss, and navigate capitalist system
3. Development of democratic culture
a. Create safe classroom environment with ‘positive center’ that welcomes diversity
123
226
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
discussion of this issue stems from what they see as the problem. In their words: ‘‘The best jobs go to those with advanced higher education’’ (p. 204). Moreover, ‘‘[students] become aware early in their school career whether higher education is for them’’ (p. 204). Resigned to a world of predetermination and (unjust) meritocracy, Knight and Pearl see the solution as twofold: (a) Encourage all students equally to aspire to the best jobs and the highest form of education, and (b) teach them all to be economists so that they have the ability to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of economic policy, including ‘‘unregulated global capitalism, the role of the government in job creation, the most desirable approach to marginal tax rates,’’ etc. (p. 204). It is notable that these solutions tend not to challenge or call into question the nature or fairness of the dominant economic system or ideology. They suggest understanding and discussion of pros and cons, but not the inclusion of alternatives in that discussion. The third real-life problem that they present involves the development of a democratic culture. In their words, ‘‘youth are more concerned about culture than they are about citizenship or work,’’ and, in fact, they state that an ‘‘inadequate understanding of youth culture is largely responsible for the tragic consequences of a failed war on drugs’’ (Knight and Pearl 2000, p. 204–205). Being able to understand and influence youth culture is imperative for Knight and Pearl. To counter this problem, they favor democratic education because it leads to a democratic school culture, which can counter ‘‘divisive and falsely empowering popular culture’’ through the creation of ‘‘a center to which all feel a positive sense of attachment,’’ and which ‘‘cannot be imposed’’ but ‘‘must be negotiated’’ (p. 205). The center to which they refer is essentially an unthreatening and safe space (the classroom) that welcomes diversity and to which students feel a sense of allegiance because (a) they can ‘‘debate matters they wish to share’’ and (b) there is ‘‘negotiable authority, inclusiveness, decisions made on the basis of knowledge and reason, universal participation, … rights, … and equality’’ (p. 206). Their ideal of classroom culture and its ability to influence youth culture is a utopian one. In sum, then, with regard to determining important knowledge democratically, and in response to the associated ‘‘real-life problems,’’ the suggestions of Knight and Pearl include: Democratic classroom practices, an interpretive teaching of history, student research on government issues, discussion and debate, economics education, and the creation of a safe and inclusive classroom culture where students can bring up issues of import. These practices form the basis for comparison with critical pedagogy (in a later section of this paper). I now turn to the criticisms by Knight and Pearl of critical pedagogy, followed by clarification of what critical pedagogy actually proposes, and, finally, a comparison of democratic education with critical pedagogy along the above-mentioned dimensions.
Critical Pedagogy Through the Eyes of Knight and Pearl The analysis by Knight and Pearl of critical pedagogy with regard to ‘‘important knowledge’’ (or what should be taught) is scathing and misleading. First, at the general level, they assert that critical pedagogy is ‘‘impotent in influencing
123
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
227
curriculum policy’’ because it ‘‘proposes virtually nothing as an alternative’’ (Knight and Pearl 2000, p. 201). Second, in relation to preparing students for the work world and teaching them how to change it, they assert that critical pedagogy ‘‘only condemns the hierarchical track system, [and] nothing else’’ (p. 204). Third, when it comes to addressing popular culture, they write, ‘‘critical pedagogy has discovered popular culture and, unsurprisingly, found it corrupted by all-powerful all-encompassing hegemonic influences’’ (p. 205). Not only are these claims untrue, they also disguise the similarities between the two approaches to education and discourage dialogue and cross-pollination. It should be noted that the criticisms by Knight and Pearl of critical pedagogy are extensive, and that only those criticisms given by them in relation to the application of the first of their seven components of democratic education (the democratic determination of important knowledge) have been included here. Many more exist in relation to the other six components of their conception of democratic education.
Towards a More Full Understanding of Critical Pedagogy The ability to respond to these criticisms requires first a full understanding of critical pedagogy, for which I will draw on the most recent literature regarding its theory and praxis.2 Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2007), two well-known practitioners of critical pedagogy, pull from the major contributors to critical pedagogy (Darder 1991; Frerie 1970; Giroux 2001; Hooks 1994; Kincheloe 2004; McLaren 1994; Shor 1992) to nicely summarize it as an approach to education that is rooted in the experiences of marginalized peoples; that is centered in a critique of structural, economic, and racial oppression; that is focused on dialogue instead of a one-way transmission of knowledge; and that is structured to empower individuals and collectives as agents of social change (p. 183). To this, one should add, due to its postmodernist roots, that theorists of critical pedagogy recognize the ‘‘situated nature of knowledge’’ (Kincheloe 2007, p. 15). Kincheloe (2007) explains further the implications of this: No simple, universally applicable answers can be provided to the questions of justice, power, and praxis that haunt us. Indeed, such questions have to be asked time and again by teachers and other educational professionals operating in different historical times and diverse pedagogical locales (p. 16). 2
It should be noted that there are multiple forms of and multiple names for critical pedagogy. Ellsworth (1994) explains this well: The literature on critical pedagogy represents attempts by educational researchers to theorize and operationalize pedagogical challenges to oppressive social formations … their different emphases are reflected in the variety of labels given to them, such as ‘critical pedagogy,’ ‘pedagogy of critique and possibility,’ ‘pedagogy of student voice,’ ‘pedagogy of empowerment,’ ‘radical pedagogy,’ ‘pedagogy for radical democracy,’ and ‘pedagogy of possibility’ (pp. 300–301). As such, this paper focuses on the essential aspects of theory and pedagogy shared by all forms of critical pedagogy.
123
228
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
Taken together, what this means, in the words of Goldstein and Beutel (2007), is that, ‘‘because critical educational theory acknowledges the contextual and political nature of teaching and learning, its application and realization is always in flux’’ (p. 4). Nevertheless, they add that, ‘‘while the ideals … might remain more or less constant (for instance, education for human dignity), the actual practice changes depending upon with whom one works, the historical moment, and the context in which one works.’’ (p. 4). The essence of critical pedagogy, then, asks a lot from those involved in education. Yet, this is necessary since the experiences of marginalized people and the forms of oppression that they face vary across time and space. It is certain that the language and ideas of critical pedagogy can be intimidating and overwhelming. The key, however, is to recognize that critical pedagogy begins its work towards social justice and empowerment by asking questions in the classroom in a problem-posing way (Freire 1970; Shor 1996; Wallerstein 1987). This means that practitioners take issues that are central to the lives of the students in the class and use them as the centerpiece of discussion. The issues serve as the entry point for ontological and epistemological exploration and critique. Students learn how to question official knowledge (Apple 1993) and come to see that all knowledge is value-laden and tied to a complex historical and cultural locale. Together, teachers and students bring the problems in the lives of the students into the classroom and come to question the operation of the world around them, including traditional teacher-student relationships and traditional methods of teaching. It is through unpacking questions such as the following, for example, that critical pedagogues define what constitutes important knowledge: ‘‘Who decides what is healthy development, real knowledge, normal, and politically neutral? What makes something true?’’ (Goldstein and Beutel 2007, p. 3).
Comparing Critical Pedagogy and Democratic Education This section addresses the criticisms of Knight and Pearl and illuminates the similarities between the two approaches. First, in describing the approach of critical pedagogy to education, what becomes apparent is that it in fact does provide its own way of determining what important knowledge is. Contrary to the assertion of Knight and Pearl, critical pedagogy does propose an alternative to the current curriculum policy. As previously mentioned, critical pedagogy urges that we use the problem-posing method to confront issues of social justice, subsequently coconstructing the curriculum by teachers and students. Freire’s (1998) rhetorical questions exemplify both how important knowledge is determined and its relation to the official curriculum. He asks: Why not discuss with the students the concrete reality of their lives and that aggressive reality in which violence is permanent and where people are much more familiar with death than with life? Why not establish an ‘‘intimate’’ connection between knowledge considered basic to any school curriculum and knowledge that is the fruit of the lived experience of these students and
123
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
229
individuals? Why not discuss the implications, political and ideological, of the neglect of the poor areas of the city by the constituted authorities? Are there class-related ethical questions that need to be looked at here? (p. 37). It should be noted that such an approach to curriculum is not confined to theory; many examples exist of this approach in practice (Fischman and Gandin 2007; Gandin and Apple 2002; Morrell and Duncan-Andrade 2006; Vibert et al. 2002; Chilcoat and Ligon 1998; Shor 1992). Beyond offering its own strategy for determining important knowledge and constructing curricula, critical pedagogy is quite similar to democratic education in terms of the ends sought. The democratic education described above labors to implement democratic practices in the classroom so as to ‘‘mobilize a large enough constituency to influence the political process’’ (Knight and Pearl 2000, p. 200)—with the end-goal being a more just and democratic society. At the same time, not only do critical pedagogues also hope for a more just and democratic society, but they too see its achievement through mobilization, or action. Goldstein and Beutel (2007) makes the connection: It is through cooperative and reflective teaching and learning that students and teachers alike are able to evolve beyond the classroom and into the world. Critical educators engage students, providing them with an opportunity to transcend textbooks and ditto-sheets, enabling them to think differently and more democratically, not simply for the sake of doing it, but so that it becomes a state of being in action. (p. 5). These words demonstrate the similarities between Knight and Pearl’s radical democratic education and a more complete understanding of critical pedagogy. Both seek democratic ends and both hope to arrive there through educative practices that propel individuals into action which subsequently results in further democratization of the decision-making mechanisms of our society. As additional evidence of this goal of critical pedagogy, Giroux (2007) writes that ‘‘rather than shrink from our political responsibility as educators, we should embrace one of pedagogy’s most fundamental goals: To teach students to believe that democracy is desirable and possible’’ (p. 3). Moving from goals to practices, he adds that, ‘‘pedagogy becomes the cornerstone of democracy in that it provides they very foundation for students to learn not merely how to be governed, but also how to be capable of governing’’ (p. 3). Thus, the connection is drawn for both democratic education and critical pedagogy between the means and ends of education, with the means being the practice of a pedagogy that teaches not only about but also through democracy in that the classroom practices reflect this ideal. Likewise, the ends constitute a more just society characterized by lived democracy, meaning that individuals are instilled with human dignity, able to exercise personal autonomy, and can participate meaningfully in political affairs (such as education). A democracy in name is not good enough for either approach. Action, justice and democracy, then, are the goals of both theories; the pedagogical practices of each approach remain to be fleshed out and analyzed for areas of overlap as well as areas of difference. The practical solutions offered by
123
230
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
Table 2 The results of comparative analysis: suggestions for cross-pollination of critical pedagogy and democratic education Critical pedagogy
Democratic education
1. Should explicitly recommend democratic 1. Should incorporate in its approach ontologically classroom practices while still allowing for local and epistemologically critical discussion of all adaptation curriculum content (especially history, government, economics, language, and literature), including alternatives 2. Should make clear that it does not oppose the 2. Should encourage student research that explores understanding of current systems of political, ontology, epistemology, and values of current economic, and language-based power—only that government systems, officials, and policies, in it also encourages discussion and exploration of addition to exploring its nature and fragility, alternatives which it currently promotes 3. Should revise (its occasionally) opaque and 3. Should respect and legitimate youth culture by polarizing language for specialized publications exploring the world views of (especially for professionals and educators who may be open marginalized) students in relation to curriculum to the tenets of CP, but not as currently content, using this as an entry point for further communicated discussion
Knight and Pearl to the ‘‘real-life’’ problems associated with democratic education provide the structure for comparison of specific practices. Table 2 reports the suggestions for development of each approach that have derived from the comparative analysis in the following sections. Revisiting Real-Life Problem 1 In singling out the ability of students to use logic and evidence to address asymmetrical power relationships, Knight and Pearl they recommend the following four practices: (a) creating a classroom government that works through significant issues, (b) teaching an interpretive version of history, (c) promoting student research on issues of government, and (d) conducting discussion and debate. In this section, I turn to the literature on critical pedagogy to work through its stance on these four practices. First, on the democratization of the classroom, Kincheloe (2007) illuminates critical pedagogy’s stance. He writes that ‘‘the development of the individual coupled with the construction of a democratic community is central to a transformative pedagogy’’ (p. 38). Perhaps Fernandez-Balboa (2007) best clarifies critical pedagogy’s stance on this issue. He summarizes it as follows: A democratic society requires citizens who are educated in dignity, freedom, and political participation; which in turn requires a high degree of selfdetermination and self-regulation. Education for Democracy and Dignity, then, requires not only an awareness of all this, but also its learning and its practice.’’ (p. 124). Critical pedagogy, too, advocates learning about, as well as through, democratic practices (such as a model government).
123
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
231
Second, on an interpretive teaching of history, McLaren’s (2007) outrage at the approval in Florida by Jeb Bush of the Florida Education Omnibus Bill to outlaw the teaching of revisionist versions of history illustrates where critical pedagogy falls on this practice. That American history shall only be taught as factual, knowable, teachable, and testable fosters ‘‘anti-intellectualism’’ and ‘‘attempts to blur the distinction between fact and value,’’ he writes (p. 291). Certainly, critical pedagogues do not disagree with the interpretive approach to the teaching of history that Knight and Pearl put forth. Simply, both approaches want to illuminate that any rendering of history is necessarily biased and therefore requires an interpretive approach to its teaching. Third, with regard to student research on matters of government, the insights of Keisar and Tutela (2007) are useful. They share that in teaching for social justice in Oakhurst, New Jersey they used small learning communities and participatory action research to ‘‘investigate the transformation of a neighborhood that had been disrupted by the construction of a commuter train line’’ (p. 86), which was the result of a legislative decision. This example not only confirms critical pedagogy’s support for student research on government, but specifically points to the fact that critical pedagogy encourages student research into government decisions and actions that directly impact their lives and which raises questions about the larger structure of privilege and oppression. Such a focus is slightly different from that of democratic education, which sees the purpose of student research on government to be appreciating the ‘‘fragility of democracy and why it will always be an unfinished project’’ (Knight and Pearl 2000, p. 203). Fourth, on discussion and debate, Giroux (2007) demonstrates critical pedagogy’s conviction. He writes the following: [Critical pedagogy] must do everything possible to provide students with the knowledge and skills they need to learn how to deliberate, make judgments, and exercise choice, particularly as the latter is brought to bear on critical activities that offer the possibility of democratic change. (p. 3). He illustrates the commitment of critical pedagogy to deliberation, judgmentmaking, and choice, all of which typically happen through or as a result of discussion and debate. I have briefly shown that critical pedagogy does not oppose any of the suggestions of Knight and Pearl regarding classroom practices for responding to the first real-life problem—the (in)ability of students to use logic and evidence to address asymmetrical power relationships. Simply showing, however, that critical pedagogy does not oppose any of the recommendations of Knight and Pearl is not sufficient; it must be shown specifically how critical pedagogy and democratic education differ, as well as the possibilities for cross-pollination. I now turn to this task. Whereas the proponents of democratic education (in this case Knight and Pearl) feel comfortable prescribing the specifics of classroom activity, proponents of critical pedagogy do not. Instead, each proponent or practitioner describes how they applied the principles of critical pedagogy to their individual context without making general prescriptions. This is because of critical pedagogy’s recognition of
123
232
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
and respect for the changing face of oppression and discrimination, and the attendant (not to mention constant) critical self-reflection, ontological exploration, and epistemologically critical eye that it calls for by both teachers and students. Nevertheless, this difference is not insuperable. While the reality is that, to this point, critical pedagogues have felt comfortable insisting on practices that empower students, very few have prescribed or described (Shor 1992) the kinds of democratic practices that Knight and Pearl call for—never mind the fact that, in their own work, the practices they employ are democratic in nature. Furthermore, due to the growing consensus and increased attention that democracy has received from philosophers and ethicists (Sen 1999; Crocker 2008) as the most ethical system of government, critical pedagogues should indeed recommend democratic classroom practices. Since critical pedagogy is already in accordance with the recommendation of democratic practices, there is space for their inclusion in the articulation of critical pedagogy. What theorists and practitioners of critical pedagogy should do is (a) maintain their critical stance with regard to ontology and epistemology, and (b) maintain their emphasis on continued self-assessment with regard to the harmony between the principles of critical pedagogy and one’s actions and relationships, while also accommodating specific recommendations regarding democratic classroom practices. This results in a short list of ethically appropriate classroom practices while still leaving open the content of the debates, discussions, and research to fit the specific context in which one teaches. On the teaching of history, there is a slight difference that should be resolved. Whereas democratic education emphasizes ‘‘understanding the incomplete logic’’ (Knight and Pearl 2000, p. 202) that has resulted in problems that continue to have relevance today, critical pedagogy explicitly takes it a step further to not only understand the logic but also to demystify the incontestability of official history and introduce the relative and value-laden nature of all knowledge, especially history. It may be that this is what Knight and Pearl had in mind for the teaching of history; we do not know. Speaking to what was explicitly written, however, it is imperative that (a) the distinction be made between understanding logic and questioning the nature of logic, and (b) that proponents of democratic education accept this furtherance of their stated practice. To understand the logic that oppresses one is not the same as legitimating alternate value systems and ways of seeing the world. For this reason, democratic education needs to adopt a more ontologically and epistemologically critical lens regarding the teaching of history—and, by natural extension, the teaching of economics and the topics that are chosen for student research. To continue, the third point for comparison is the conduct of student research. The suggestion of democratic education for students to research and investigate matters of government so as to appreciate the fragility of democracy has good intentions, but, ultimately, it is insufficient. On this point, democratic education can learn from critical pedagogy. By this I mean that democratic education should not limit itself, or its students, to researching matters of governance. That is to say that students should look not only at how governments or its component parts function. They should also be encouraged to research policies, regulations, or other specific government action as the entry point to further exploration—as in the example of Keisar and Tutela (2007) given earlier. The idea is to start with a government action,
123
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
233
policy, or regulation, for example, that is relevant to the lives of the students and use it as an opening into a discussion of the role of government, who makes decisions, what values these decisions display, and so on. In this way, the content of the research has a greater likelihood of carrying exigency with the students because it is a matter that immediately impacts their life. Subsequently, the students come to (a) understand the fragility of democracy (as Knight and Pearl had hoped), (b) identify the specific ways in which oppression and discrimination function to affect their quality of life, and (c) explore the ontological and epistemological implications of the government’s orientation. The net result is that the conception of democratic education deepens and becomes more robust, moving beyond superficial investigation to research that has the potential to critically edify and—one hopes— mobilize those involved. Before moving on, however, it must be noted that critical pedagogy does not object to the study of any form of government, only that it also encourages the inclusion of alternatives and the critique of both. Critical pedagogy should be more clear about this. The next area for examination concerns discussion and debate. Democratic education jumps straight to the discussion and debate phase, while, as DuncanAndrade and Morrell remind us, the students must first master the language of wider communication (in this case, English) and practice critical thinking skills. One cannot have debate and discussion based on logic and reason that will stand up to the challenges of the real-world if you do not first have the ability to communicate clearly and think critically. I believe Knight and Pearl agree; only they did not make this explicit in their conception of democratic education. They call for discussion and debate without emphasizing the need to communicate in such a way as to empower them in the current political and economic system. See Table 2 for a summary of the suggestions presented above. Revisiting Real-Life Problem 2 On the problematic connection between education and labor force participation, Knight and Pearl, first, criticize critical pedagogy for offering criticism without suggesting solutions and, second, propose, in response to this problematic situation, the following: (a) Equally encouraging all students to complete as much education as possible and (b) teaching them to become economists so that they can debate the pros and cons of economic policy. Counter evidence to address the criticism of critical pedagogy comes from Goldstein and Beutel (2007). They ask: ‘‘How do we as educators committed to critical praxis and social justice engage teacher education students in discussions that move them beyond … the dominant discourses of social Darwinism?’’ (p. 23). As they demonstrate, critical pedagogy is, in fact, interested in moving beyond solely condemning the hierarchical system. Further evidence can be derived from Giroux (2007) when he writes that students must ‘‘question deepseated assumptions and myths that legitimate the most archaic and disempowering social practices that structure every aspect of society and … take responsibility for intervening in the world they inhabit.’’ (p. 2). Here, Giroux articulates the true desire of critical pedagogy, which is not simply to condemn the hierarchical track system, but (a) to teach the students to think beyond the current system and its complex
123
234
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
relationship to power, knowledge and practice in various spheres of life (including economic policy) and (b) to result in action. With regard to the specific practices suggested by Knight and Pearl, there is a clear difference in the stance of democratic education and critical pedagogy. The former wants to simply encourage all students equally and provide them with economics education in order to be able to discuss the pros and cons of economic policy. The latter calls for questioning ‘‘deep-seated assumptions and myths that legitimate the most archaic and disempowering social practices that structure every aspect of society,’’ including economic policies and the differences in theory and practice—that is, the inability of economic policy to translate into practice the assumptions on which neoliberal economic policy is premised (such as perfect competition), and the associated effects and implications of violating such basic assumptions. The critique here of democratic education, then, is similar to the critique given in the previous section of insufficient criticality on the part of democratic education with regard to the teaching of history. Here, what this means is that democratic education should not simply teach students to understand the economic system and discuss its pros and cons, it should also apply an ontologically and epistemologically critical lens to the matter. Students should learn about economics, but not just about capitalist economics. In order to question the basic premises of free market capitalism students must be taught, in addition to how it works and its assumptions, that it is based on a particular value system, and that there are alternatives. This implies is an expansion of the scope and depth of the economic education that Knight and Pearl propose to include a critical ontological aspect and a consideration of alternatives. At the same time, however, it must be stated that critical pedagogy does not object to the study of any economic system, only that it also encourages the inclusion of alternatives and the critique of each. Perhaps critical pedagogy should be more clear about this. Knight and Pearl’s criticism of critical pedagogy is misleading; their conception of democratic education (and, by relation, the solution they provide for their stated problem) can be enhanced by critical pedagogy. Revisiting Real-Life Problem 3 Knight and Pearl (2000) favor, in response to what they call ‘‘divisive and falsely empowering popular culture,’’ (a) democratic school culture, (b) the implementation of democratic practices, and (c) the creation of unthreatening spaces that welcome diversity, promote inclusiveness, and encourage students to bring issues in for debate, while simultaneously misrepresenting critical pedagogy as being critical of popular culture (p. 205). Here, it is necessary to show that this characterization of critical pedagogy is unwarranted, and compare critical pedagogy’s actual stance on youth culture with democratic education’s treatment of the ‘‘problem.’’ To do this, I give a brief description of the actual classroom practice of a critical educator. While multiple examples exist (Rogers et al. 2007; Marri 2005), here I briefly focus on one that links directly to Knight and Pearl’s concern about popular culture.
123
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
235
Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2007), relate their experience teaching in an urban secondary English classroom. In their case, they strove to apply the principles of critical pedagogy to literacy so as to produce ‘‘empowered and critically literate citizens’’ (p. 186) who are not only capable of being ‘‘critical consumers of all information that they encounter in their daily lives,’’ but also ‘‘capable producers of counter information’’ (p. 187). To do this they ‘‘developed classroom units that coupled the study of film, newspapers, magazines, and music with the study of traditional novels, poems, and plays’’ (p. 188). Regarding the practices within which the various units were carried out, they relate that (a) ‘‘participation and dialogue about literary themes was normalized,’’ (b) the ‘‘students were encouraged to bring examples from their favorite songs or poems that displayed the [literary] ideas we were learning,’’ (c) the students worked in groups and with the teacher to analyze both the traditional and popular texts and to receive feedback (p. 192–193), and (d) the groups would present their research to the class followed by critical questions from their peers (p. 188). Additionally, they bring attention to the following: ‘‘Writing was not forgotten; only we sought to develop … skills no longer emphasized in many classrooms such as working well with classmates, presenting one’s ideas orally, and engaging in respectful, yet critical conversations with teachers and classmates’’ (p. 189). Numerous observations can be gleamed from this example. First, critical pedagogy fruitfully engages with popular culture and does not find it to be ‘‘corrupted by all-powerful all-encompassing hegemonic influences’’ (Knight and Pearl 2000, p. 205). Second, the pedagogical practices of critical educators reflect the desired practices of Knight and Pearl regarding the creation of a democratic culture in classrooms. On this second observation, the classroom practices that Duncan-Andrade and Morrell describe make this clear. In addition to the fact that these educators used the problem-posing method and tackled popular texts to which the students could relate (especially since the students were encouraged to supply such texts), the following were key elements of their praxis: Student participation, discussion, critical questioning, working in groups, giving feedback, and taking part in respectful conversations with peers and teachers—all of which foster the creation of what Knight and Pearl refer to as a ‘‘center,’’ or a safe and unthreatening space that welcomes all students and facilitates an inclusive and democratic classroom culture. The difference, then, between the two approaches regarding the treatment of popular culture and the creation of a democratic classroom can be seen on two levels. The first level pertains to classroom practices that foster the creation of a democratic culture. While in the end they resemble each other and result in a very similar classroom culture, democratic education goes so far as to prescribe specific practices while critical pedagogy does not—as heretofore discussed in relation to the first ‘real-life’ problem. Second, and more importantly, in terms of the treatment of the popular culture, Knight and Pearl’s version of democratic culture seems to tolerate popular culture instead of legitimating it and using it as an entry point for discussion. This is exemplified by the following statements made by Knight and Pearl regarding popular culture: (a) ‘‘Youth are more concerned about culture than they are about citizenship or work’’ (p. 204); (b) ‘‘culture is a powerful influence on
123
236
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
youth and it cannot be ignored in the classroom’’ (p. 205); and (c) ‘‘a goal of the democratic education is to reconstruct culture’’ (p. 205). It is almost as if Knight and Pearl wish they did not have to deal with youth culture, and that, in an ideal world, young people would naturally be more concerned with citizenship and work—but since this is not the case, they set about the task of reconstructing it. In contrast to this, and as Duncan-Andrade and Morrell show us, critical pedagogy encourages students to bring pieces of their culture into the classroom, legitimating it and using it as an important element in the task of ontological and epistemological exploration. This is the crux of the difference. Even though Knight and Pearl encourage students to bring issues to the classroom that they wish to share, it is not the same as humbly approaching student culture and student experiences as inherently valid and warranting a discussion of the multiple realities that exist. Therefore, what we see once again is that democratic education is deficient on an ontological and epistemological level. Democratic education’s strength is that it promotes democratic classroom practices and the creation of a safe and inclusive space for all students. Its weakness however is that it does not seem to respect youth culture or the worldviews that permeate it. This, some might assert, nullifies any attempt on the part of democratic education to realize a truly safe and inclusive space. For this reason, it is imperative that democratic education not only accepts and respects student’s perspectives and experiences, but also uses them as the starting point for student exploration regarding how people individually and collectively fit in this world, how we come to understand this, and that there are multiple ways of answering those questions. Only then will the effort to create a welcoming and safe democratic classroom environment be sufficient, according to critical pedagogy. At the same time, what we notice in the case of Duncan-Andrade and Morrell is that their language regarding critical pedagogy, in both theory and practice, is tempered. Although it is clear that Knight and Pearl did not do a thorough reading of critical pedagogy before making their assertions, it seems that part of what put them off to the approach is the language. Indeed, as Huerta-Charles (2007), recounts from his experience teaching critical pedagogy, ‘‘Graduate students at the master level … commented that critical pedagogy’s language was so abstract that they could not grasp the meaning of what was taught to them in the classes’’ (p. 252). The concession was made earlier that the language of critical pedagogy can be intimidating; however, the point here is not that critical pedagogy should be dumbed-down, rather that the language could, or even should, be made more userfriendly for those who are new to the approach to education. While I understand and appreciate that the vocabulary of critical pedagogues provides a new currency through which to treat the ‘‘institutionalized socio-mental paralysis that has become the twenty-first century school,’’ the very educators that these pedagogues hope will come to see the benefits (if not necessity) of critical pedagogy may well be turnedoff to it before they give it a chance (Steinberg 2007, p. ix). What I suggest is that critical pedagogy can, for certain publications, revise its language without compromising the potency of its orientation or implementation (Wink 2000). It can still base itself in the experiences of the marginalized, critique oppression and discrimination, start from a position of dialogue, and focus on empowerment—
123
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
237
perhaps even incorporating some of the language and practical suggestions of democratic education—without jeopardizing its essence. It does not have to (and should not) sacrifice its ability to be ontologically and epistemologically critical. It is more a matter of expression, not depth or content. This is one way critical pedagogy can learn from democratic education. The task of this section was to map out the specific differences and similarities in theory and practice that become apparent as one compares the tenets and practices of critical pedagogy (as described by its many theorists and practitioners) with those of democratic education in terms of both their general orientation and their treatment of the three real-life problems that crop up in relation to the determination of important knowledge. Along with analyzing their differences, the areas in which they can learn from each other were explicated. To summarize, as a result of the comparative analysis, this essay recommends for critical pedagogy the following: (a) Call explicitly for democratic classroom practices; (b) make clear that it does not oppose the study of any (especially current) system of political, economic, or language-based power, for example, only that it also encourages discussion and exploration of alternatives; (c) consider amending its (occasionally) opaque and polarizing language and producing more and specific publications for individuals who may be open to the ideas and principles of critical pedagogy, but not as currently communicated. For the development of democratic education, this essay recommends the following: (a) Adopt a more ontologically and epistemologically critical lens regarding its teaching (in all subject areas) and student research (through participatory action research); (b) encourage student research that explores the ontology, epistemology, and values of current governmental and economic systems, along with their policies and officials, in addition to exploring their nature and fragility, which it currently promotes; and (c) respect youth culture by legitimating and exploring the experiences and worldviews that the students carry (even/especially when different from or outside of the dominant culture). In the end, the two approaches to theory and practice can interact to become more potent without losing their essence or compromising their integrity. Furthermore, this section stressed that these approaches to theory and practice can interact to become more potent without losing their essence or compromising their integrity. Overall, the comparative analysis strives to improve the success of the two approaches, not detract from them.
Conclusion This manuscript enters the political debate regarding what kind of citizen education seeks to produce. What it has done is show that two different schools of thought regarding this debate—critical pedagogy, which labors to educate justice-oriented citizens, and democratic education, which endeavors to educate participatory citizens—are not only more similar than different, but also that they can (and should) learn from one another. There are distinct possibilities for cross-pollination between them. This was explained by taking the essay written by Knight and Pearl (2000)—the only analysis to date explicitly comparing critical pedagogy and
123
238
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
democratic education—and looking in depth at the real-life problems associated with realizing democratic decision-making mechanisms in the field of education generally and in relation to the determination of important knowledge specifically. In using this concept as the starting point for the analysis, this essay was able to lay out various components of democratic education. Similarly, by drawing from the literature on critical pedagogy to weigh in on the three real-life problems discussed, this essay outlined critical pedagogy, subsequently using evidence from the literature to (a) counter Knight and Pearl’s portrayal of critical pedagogy, and (b) compare a more full understanding of the approach of critical pedagogy to education with that of democratic education. Suggestions for how each approach could learn from the other and develop as a result were derived. Table 3 summarizes the findings of this inquiry, clearly delineating the areas where the two approaches overlap, how they are different, and what each should do to develop further in support of its ultimate goal: A more socially just and democratic society. In the end, what we need to remember is that, despite the specific differences discussed in this paper, both approaches seek to tackle issues of social justice and realize a society characterized by a democracy of equality and participation, not partiality and exclusion. In fact, it is for precisely this reason that the two approaches cannot afford to engage in the unconstructive criticism that typified Knight and Pearl’s treatment of critical pedagogy. To the contrary, proponents of critical pedagogy and democratic education need to continue to explore the ways in which the two approaches can come together and learn from one another so as to strengthen the movement that they allege to work towards. The rhetorical questioning of Westheimer and Kahne (2004) drives this point home: ‘‘Do programs that support civic participation necessarily promote students’ capacities for critical analysis and social change? Conversely, does focusing on social justice provide the foundation for effective and committed civic actors?’’ (p. 245). The answers, of course, are no and no. We need to combine a purely participatory focus with a purely social-justice focus. Alone, it is not enough for students to be able to function in the current political and economic arrangement. Neither is it sufficient for students to be well-versed in alternatives and ontologically and epistemologically critical. They must be both. Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2007) state it nicely: The imperative of our movement demands that we push the envelope to discover novel approaches that allow us to accomplish our multiple goals of developing students who have the skills to function academically and professionally in a complex world, and also the sensitivities needed to function as critical citizens in a multicultural democracy (p. 198). Finally, as Lima (2007) comments: Despite the difficulties and obstacles that a democratization project of educational powers will certainly face, a publicly critical education, committed to the de facto autonomy of society and its members, does not seem achievable without the democratic reinvention of schools as political and multicultural sites (p. 23).
123
DE encourages understanding of logic of history; CP also emphasizes questioning nature of logic and legitimating alternate value systems and world views
2. Interpretive teaching of history
DE should expand discussion to include not just how systems and policies function, but also their underlying ideology and alternatives
DE does not enable discussion of alternatives outside of dominant ideology; CP does
DE only presses for students to complete as CP should place emphasis on how to succeed in DE should enable students to understand and current labor market as well as promoting critique current structure of labor market, not much education as possible to help compete simply encourage participation in labor market; CP promotes attainment of attainment of education to question assumptions legitimating discrimination education that allows students to question deep seated assumptions that legitimate inequality and discrimination
4. Discussion and debate
5. Encouraging all students equally
NA
DE should call for student research that explores ontology, epistemology, and values of current government systems, officials, and policies, in addition to exploring its nature and fragility
DE should adopt an ontologically and epistemologically critical stance (i.e., with regard to teaching of history, literature, language, economics, etc.)
NA
Development of DE
3. Student research on DE supports appreciation and investigation of CP should explore how government functions in addition to exploring critiques and issues related to nature and fragility of government and government democracy, while CP stresses the use of gov. alternatives policies as entry for further exploration and discussion of ontological and epistemological assumptions and value systems
NA
DE overtly calls for classrooms to function as CP should recommend certain democratic democratic govs; CP does not prescribe classroom practices, while still allowing for specific classroom practices to allow for most local adaptation appropriate response to context, particular forms of discrimination and oppression
1. Classroom government
Development of CP
So what’s the difference?
Both CP and DE support
Table 3 Results of comparison of theory and practice of critical pedagogy (CP) and democratic education (DE)
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242 239
123
CP should make more clear that it is concerned Same as above (point 5) DE preoccupied with discussion and with understanding current system, in understanding of current system so as to facilitate its navigation; CP given to teaching addition to discussing and exploring alternatives pros and cons as well as applying ontologically and epistemologically critical lens to current system and alternatives
DE attempts to create democratic school CP should make more clear that it supports DE should respect and legitimate youth culture culture by countering popular culture through and, in fact, creates safe spaces and ‘positive by exploring world views of (especially safe spaces and cultivation of ‘positive centers’ through this approach marginalized) students in relation to center’ that welcomes diversity; CP uses curriculum content, using this as an entry democratic culture to legitimate and point for discussion incorporate youth culture, as well as to empower students to hold critical conversations about subject matter in relation to their culture
7. Development of democratic school culture
Development of DE
6. Teaching all students to be economists (cont’d)
Development of CP
So what’s the difference?
Both CP and DE support
Table 3 continued
240 Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
123
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
241
These words unequivocally reinforce the need synthesize the two approaches discussed in this essay. One avenue to pursue is what this essay has started: Evaluating the extent to which cross-pollination of critical pedagogy and democratic education is possible. Indeed, more research is needed as this manuscript has fully investigated the compatibility of these two approaches with regard to only one of the seven facets of democratic education as presented by Knight and Pearl (2000).
References Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In L. Althusser (Ed.), Lenin and philosophy and other essays. New York: Monthly Review Press. Apple, M. W. (1993). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. New York: Routledge. Chilcoat, G. W., & Ligon, J. A. (1998). ‘‘We talk here. This is a school for talking.’’ Participatory democracy from the classroom out into the community: How discussion was used in the Mississippi Freedom Schools. Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 165–193. Crocker, D. (2008). Ethics of global development: Agency, capability, and deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press (Forthcoming). Darder, A. (1991). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical foundation for bicultural education. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1943). The school and society, revised edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Free Press. Duncan-Andrade, J., & Morrell, E. (2007). Critical pedagogy and popular culture in an urban secondary English classroom. In P. McLaren & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? (pp. 184–199). New York: Peter Lang. Ellsworth, E. (1994). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. In L. Stone & G. M. Boldt (Eds.), The education feminism reader (pp. 300–327). London: Routledge. Fernandez-Balboa, J. (2007). Dignity and democracy in the college classroom: The practice of student self-evaluation. In R. A. Goldstein (Ed.), Useful theory: Making critical education practical (pp. 105–128). New York: Peter Lang. Fischman, G. E., & Gandin, L. A. (2007). Escola cidada and critical discourses of educational hope. In P. McLaren & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? (pp. 209–221). New York: Peter Lang. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Gandin, L. A., & Apple, M. W. (2002). Challenging neo-liberalism, building democracy: Creating the Citizen School in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Journal of Education Policy, 17(2), 259–279. Giroux, H. (1983). Critical theory and educational practice. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Giroux, H. (2001). Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the opposition. Westport, CT: University Press. Giroux, H. A. (2007). Democracy, education, and the politics of critical pedagogy. In P. McLaren & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? (pp. 1–5). New York: Peter Lang. Goldstein, R. A., & Beutel, A. R. (2007). Why a book on ‘‘useful theory’’? What makes theory ‘‘useful’’? In R. A. Goldstein (Ed.), Useful theory: Making critical education practical (pp. 1–11). New York: Peter Lang. Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (1972). Dialectic of enlightenment. New York: Herder and Herder.
123
242
Urban Rev (2010) 42:221–242
Huerta-Charles, L. (2007). Pedagogy of testimony: Reflections on the pedagogy of critical pedagogy. In P. McLaren & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? (pp. 249–261). New York: Peter Lang. Keisar, D. L., & Tutela, J. (2007). What happened to the street? Seeking democracy through action research. In R. A. Goldstein (Ed.), Useful theory: Making critical education practical (pp. 85–104). New York: Peter Lang. Kincheloe, J. L. (2004). Critical pedagogy primer. New York: Peter Lang. Kincheloe, J. L. (2007). Critical pedagogy in the twenty-first century: Evolution for survival. In P. McLaren & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? (pp. 10–42). New York: Peter Lang. Knight, T., & Pearl, A. (2000). Democratic education and critical pedagogy. The Urban Review, 32(2), 197–226. Lima, L. C. (2007). Schooling for critical education: The reinvention of schools as democratic organizations. In C. A. Torres & A. Teodoro (Eds.), Critique and utopia: New developments in the sociology of education in the twenty-first century (pp. 11–24). New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Boston: Beacon Press. Marri, A. R. (2005). Building a framework for classroom-based multicultural democratic education: Learning from three skilled teachers. Teachers College Record, 107(5), 1036–1059. McLaren, P. (1994). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy and the foundations of education. New York: Longman. McLaren, P. (2007). The future of the past: Reflections on the present state of empire and pedagogy. In P. McLaren & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? (pp. 289–314). New York: Peter Lang. Morrell, E., & Duncan-Andrade, J. (2006). Popular culture and critical media pedagogy in secondary literacy classrooms. International Journal of Learning, 12(9), 273–280. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107–110, 107th Cong., 1st sess. (January 8, 2002): codified at U.S. Code Title 20 Sec. 6301 et. seq. http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/ 107-110.pdf. Accessed August 4, 2008. Rogers, J., Morrell, E., & Enyedy, N. (2007). Studying the struggle: Contexts for learning and identity development for urban youth. American Behavioral Scientist, 5(3), 419–443. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: First Anchor Books. Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Shor, I. (1996). When students have power: Negotiating authority in a critical pedagogy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Steinberg, S. R. (2007). Where are we now? In P. McLaren & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? (pp. ix–x). New York: Peter Lang. Stirk, P. (2000). Critical theory, politics and society: An introduction. New York: Pinter. Vibert, A. B., Portelli, J. P., Shields, C., & Laroque, L. (2002). Critical practice in elementary schools: Voice, community, and a curriculum of life. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 93–116. Wallerstein, N. (1987). Problem-posing education: Freire’s method for transformation. In I. Shor & P. Freire (Eds.), Freire for the classroom: A sourcebook for liberatory teaching (pp. 33–44). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269. Wink, J. (2000). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world. New York: Longman.
123
